Love at first sight:

Sometimes a bullet is released and you just know it is a winner, with a potential for greatness.

Imagine an all-copper construction that is big enough and heavy enough to be used on a cape buffalo, should the situation arise.

The bullet is designed to resist wind-drift and retain energy 'way out there'. In Africa, 'way out there' is only 300-400 yards, but this bullet in on target.

The BC is listed as 0.602 BC.
The bullet is 250 grains, .338".
At 2700fps in a 338 WinMag (a reasonable hunting load and former, common max-load), when sighted in to stay within 2.1" max height, the bullet is 2.0" at 100 yards and -7.3" at 300yards, while -21.2" at 400 yards.

The energies?
Well, 4046 ftlbs. at muzzle is typical for a 338 WM hunting load.
But this bullet still has 3003 ftlbs at 300 yards, not at 200 yards or less with the typical hunting load.
That is a lot of fire-power, way out there for common hunters.

The 400 yard measurements are not shabby either:
When sighted in at 2.0"/100 yards, the drop is -21.1" at 400 yards, retaining 2707 ftlbs and still traveling at 2200+fps for full, normal mushroom expansion.

So, I just saw the announcement and it is a wonderful design.

• More weight than the 225gnTTSX for larger animals at any angle, including buffalo.
  
• More BC for wind resistance.
  
• More BC for downrange energy.
  
• More case capacity than with the 265gn .338" TTSX/LRX, and more velocity, but equal in BC.
  
• A 1.65 stability factor in a 1 in 10" twist, something that should fit almost any factory 338.
  
• And a minimal .338" diameter for at least a little authority on larger game.

So I plan to try some out next month when reunited to a 338.

PS: I hope to try out a Nosler 265 Accubond, too. But between an Accubond and an LRX or TTSX, I'll take the LRX for buffalo. A person may be walking after eland and find a buffalo. The game scout expects you to shoot the buffalo with your 338. So a great bullet makes the general caliber even better.

One driving band? Wonder why.
dmw

quote:

Originally posted by Fury01:
One driving band? Wonder why.
dmw

Yes, I wondered the same.

Actually, it's two grooves, not a driving band.

A credit to Barnes in already putting the bullet into their loading data charts.

My guess is that they found out that the BC goes up significantly with only two grooves and the copper residue was still negligible.

I like the idea of 375 energy out at 250+ yardages. An all-copper bullet with .313 SD should penetrate like crazy.

In what countries is a .338 legal for cape buffalo?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
In what countries is a .338 legal for cape buffalo?

I can't answer that. It's not legal in TZ, but it has been legal in other countries at various times. In TZ, a license for a buffalo can be written as long as a person has a .375 or over in the battery. The reality is that a person often has only one rifle at a time and a game scout (not a PH) wants to see meat on the table. So if tracking some hartebeest or wildebeest with a 338 and finding a buffalo, the game scout/tracker will probably be upset if a person passed up an easy shot because the rifle in the hands was a 338.

Not exactly the same situation, but related, the last buffalo I shot was with a 416Rigby, but following up close in some tall grass my son put a finishing shot on the thrashing buffalo with the 338 because it was in his hands. A 225gnTTSX into the head and exiting, the buffalo went down, lights out. The game scout was happy. Should my son have waited until I could re-position? No. One never knows what a buffalo will do until it is stone, cold, dead. We both reach for the 416 purposefully when tracking a buffalo. The second person carries the 338.

Anyway, the 250gn .338" looks like a great bullet to have up the spout. The 225gnTTSX has been great, haven't recovered one, but this 250gn should be just a tad better for penetration. [OK, yes, it is difficult to improve on a perfect record, but the day will come when a 250 just might be needed over a 225 for an extra 10%. 30+ years ago in another country I took a buffalo with the old 275 Speer. It properly anchored the old dagga boy.] I've thought of the round-nose 300gn .338" Woodleighs, in fact we have a box or two unloaded, but have never considered them as the best all-around antelope bullet and I would expect this new 250gnLRX to out-penetrate the widely expanding Woodleighs.

Lots of folks have shot buffalo in TZ with a .338 and even lesser rifles with game scout permission, that a $20 tip as a rule..besides Ive never met a game scout that had any idea what caliber a hunter was shooting and few can read.

The Nosler Accubond pretty well fills the same bill and has a better killing record I suspect. The 250 gr. accubond in most 338 is almost too long for the powder capacity. The new 300 gr. Accubond needs a .375 length magazine or a single shot rifle. Looks like a no. 2 pencil without and eraser!!

All that said Ive never had any problem killing a buffalo with a 250 gr. Nosler or a solid, It kills as well as a 9.3x62 or 375 as far as I can tell..I have a couple of kills on film with my .338 Win. one with solids that bleed profusely and ran 50 yards then jumped up and took off and I rolled him up in a summersalt with my iron sighted 404, The other with the 250 gr. Woodleigh ran 50 or 75 yards and died with a death bellow.

The .338 to me pretty well clones the 9.3x62 but out ranges it by a good deal..both good rounds.

When I first started to load Barnes Xbullets back in the mid-late 1990s, I called Barnes to see what they recommended as a one bullet solution for all Alaskan game with the 338 Win Mag.

The gentleman I spoke with suggested the 225 grain Xbullet. I asked him what I would be giving up as compared to their 250 grain Xbullet and he replied, about 100 foot pounds of energy and two inches of penetration.

Fast forward to the late 2000s, I had the chance to communicate with Randy Brooks through an online chat hosted by The Weatherby Nation. I asked him if they would be producing a 250 grain TTSX for the 338 Win Mag. He said they weren't going to because that style of bullet used up too much case capacity. Should be interesting to see how the 250 LRXs work out for the 338 Win Mag.

I built a .338 Win on a 375 action, so I could seat out the very long 300 gr. bullets (Accubonds etc.) It performed to the best of expections, that said, I found the .338 Win in my Ruger African did almost as well with the 250 or 275 gr. bullets. The only reason the .338 is not listed for DG in most countries is it wasn't around when they came up with those old now outdated laws..The .338 has more penetration with equal weight bullets than the .375s, gives up a tad of cross section so its a push with the .375..and form my experience killing game with both Id be hard pressed to tell any difference in the two, and I will add the 9.3x62 to this scenario..Just my two bits.

What is the minimum twist rate recommended for the new bullet? Will it work in standard twist rifles or are you going to have to rebarrel.

Reason I ask is because most of the VLD and heavy for caliber bullets seem to require a faster twist.

I think this bullet is meant more for the big 338s like the Ultra mag, Lapua, and the Weatherby's

Mozambique does not have caliber restrictions.

The only reason the .338 is not listed for DG in most countries is it wasn't around when they came up with those old now outdated laws..

Really ? 1958 was the date !

Why i'm not surprised by this statement.... another case of a Atkinson lesser caliber outshooting the next step up?

Not to slate you Ray but do you own a rifle in a caliber that does not beat it's next cartridge up ? your 7x57 outshoots a 7x64 and beats a 7mm Rem mag

If its not the 9.3 x 62 outshooting the 375 we now have a 8.5mm (338) outshooting the 375 ?
so what will it be 9,3 or 8.5 ?

BTW the 338 Win ( 8.5mm ) was released in 1958 but we should not forget the British had a host of 8 plus millimeters in the field long long before this and those 8mm plus were very well known for their penetration ! To the point that the British used them in the trenches of WW1 to penetrate shields protecting snipers.

318 WR which is nothing more than a 9.3x62 with a 8.4mm bullet. So in fact the now the possibility of a "Atkonized" 8.4mm..... will that outshoot the 338 Win and ultimately the 375 ? if given the same treatment ?

What about Jeffery's 333 (1908) ? Now we have a 8.5mm bullet in a big case and by all accounts a 338 Win equivalent if not superior to if shot using modern bullets...... why would the EAPHA in 1934 ban this from hunting DG ?

The EAPHA brought in the 375 rule in 1934, not the government but PH's and not only caliber rules they rewrote conservation rules.

The TPHA (Tanzania) was formed in 1966 and they adopted the EAPHA rules.

Rhodesia followed suit initially making the minimum the 375 but dropping it later to 9,3 mm
Why did the they not accept the 8.5mm or 9mm caliber ( this was done after the 338 win was conceived ) ?

South Africa and Namibia also made their rules after the introduction of the 338 Win ?

Alf, that is useful history, and it raises a couple of questions.

1.
I have been told and was under the impression that there was a 40-caliber minimum for buffalo and DG in East Africa at some time in the past. Would you know the dates for that? In 1934, did the EAPHA recommend 40 calibre, or did they already drop things to .375"?

2. On the 333Jeffrey and 1934 rules, I wonder what kind of loads and bullets were available?

If the Jeffrey was loaded down to a factory "low-pressure" load, like the 416Rigby was loaded way down to 5000 ftlbs, then the 333Jeffrey was not a real comparison to the 338WinMag but would have been less than a 333-06 in energy levels and in the same ballpark with the 318WR, which is not too far from a hot handload in 8x57.

On AmmoGuide the 333Jeffrey is listed as having a nominal energy level of only 3225 ftlb (4372 Joules, an order of magnitude BELOW the 5400J Zimbabwe rule). That 3225 ft# is lower than the 338-06 3471 ft#, and is really in a different, lower class from the 4000-ftlb 338 Win Mag. When the 338WinMag came out it was published with 250 grain bullets at 2700fps for 4046ftlb. In Joules, that is 5486 Joules and above the 5400-Joule energy requirement used in Zimbabwe and some southern African areas. Those 4000 foot-pound levels are still achievable in all the 338s that I have owned although loading manuals now tend to limit things to 3900ftlbs (Nosler and Hornady still list some loads at 4100 and 4200ft#).

Anyway, were I around in 1934, I wouldn't list the 333Jeffrey and its 3225ft# for dangerous game, either.
But the 338WM came out with modern powders and bullets and over 4000ft# energy. I think that Ray has a point here. The 338WM was just too late to be given a real consideration, even though many a game department approved the less-powerful 9.3x62. I think of the 338WM as the "308" of big bores: it produces remarkable energies and results for its size, and practically speaking, it is a minimum caliber for me to walk an African forest and feel comfortable and safe.

quote:

Originally posted by Palladin8:
What is the minimum twist rate recommended for the new bullet? Will it work in standard twist rifles or are you going to have to rebarrel.

Reason I ask is because most of the VLD and heavy for caliber bullets seem to require a faster twist.

I think this bullet is meant more for the big 338s like the Ultra mag, Lapua, and the Weatherby's

Those are good questions.
Part of my happiness in the announcement is knowing that this bullet is trying to answer those very questions. Barnes already had some super-long bullets at 265, 280, and 285 grains that were intended for the Lapua-class 338's. They were labelled as such in marketing. This 250 grain .338" is not labelled as "Lapua" but is a general 338 bullet.

I ran this new 250-grain LRX bullet through some ballistic calculators (JBMballistecs.com). It's StabilityFactor came out at a very respectable 1.65 with a standard 10" twist. Many popular hunting bullets land in a range between 1.2-1.5, especially in smaller calibers. It looks like there will be no problem with stability with 338 factory rifles, which standardize around a 10" twist. The bullet should be usable up close (before 'going to sleep') as well as out far.

The 333 Jeffery had pisspoor bullets ( rather the same construction ) bullet as the 318 WR but the 318's redeeming trait was it's relatively low velocity so they operated very well at those velocities. Up the velocity as in the case of the 333 Jeff and it got a very bad rep because the bullets were not holding up and penetration was poor.

The same applied to the 9,3 Mauser vs 9.3 Brennecke, it took less than 200 fps difference between the two to make one a very desirable caliber and the other relatively useless. It was only after giving them a modern bullet treatment that the faster became "better"

The 9.3x62 was in Old Rhodesia the Eland gun of choice

The interesting part about the 9,3 Brennecke was that RWS loaded them with their FMJ it became a meat mincer whilst the 375 using the same bullet style albeit in 375 caliber still did relatively ok. RWS ammo was known to be "Hot Loaded" and after zipping open a number of animals and totally ruining good meat I pulled all the Brennecke's FMJ's.

As to the "rules"
The 375 rule was actually written into the EAPHA's very first meeting "rules pages" or statements . The group of people who started this was very concerned about the sudden influx of would be PH's and uncontrolled access to hunting after WW1. In the movie out of Africa Robert Redfords character Finch -Hatton references this when he and Karen Blixen were flying.

This was no coincidence it was mentioned in the book it was a real issue at the time.

I have a book written by Jan Hemsing formerly of Nairobi on Ker and Downey Safaris ( I do not know if she is still alive today ) and in this she has a copy of the typed notes from that first founding meetings. ( as a side note Jan Hemsing wrote up the histories of the old famous Hotels of Nairobi as well and I have copies of most of these)

Based on what I can glean the 375 rule initially seemed to be instinct and intuition driven based on a collective decision from a group of like minded PH's of the time.

The more modern versions of the rule was based on some form of "science" base albeit flawed in that numerical calculation considerations were used. Muzzle energy and caliber in combination.

Both Zimbabwe Namibia and South Africa used this as a basis.

If given a modern treatment using monometal FN bullets one could argue that even a 30 caliber would suffice.

Having used a 338 Win for years in South Africa I would have no hesitation taking on anything with it as long as the "right' bullet is chosen. ( ia had a 338 Sako Fin Bear full stock with a 20 inch barrel that was my fathers gun at first. He did not like to blast so we bought him a 7x57 and I took over the 338 )

quote:

As to the "rules"

So Alf,
it appears that we are agreed on the low energy of the old 333 loadings contributing to its exclusion from being a DG rifle. The similar capacity 338WM can hold its own.

However, it would be good to know exactly when and where the "40 calibre" rule was used. Any data on that?

The EAPHA's documentation ie meeting minutes notes etc resides in the USA and they have been digitized and is available to researchers. It would make for interesting reading.

Im away from my library but would get back this evening will do some hunting in the pages

Will a buffalo, or the African game that "may" be shot with a 338 regularly stop a TTSX in 338?


I haven't shot a lot of big AK bears, but I've shot a couple as a back up, and I've yet to find anything in AK that will reliably stop the 225 grain TTSX.

250 grain just doesn't seem to offer much over the 225.

quote:

Originally posted by AK_Stick:
Will a buffalo, or the African game that "may" be shot with a 338 regularly stop a TTSX in 338?


I haven't shot a lot of big AK bears, but I've shot a couple as a back up, and I've yet to find anything in AK that will reliably stop the 225 grain TTSX.

250 grain just doesn't seem to offer much over the 225.

There are two things that the 250LRX offers.

A BC improvement of 0.090 from .513 to .603 is significant. This makes for better wind resistance out over 400 yards.

And while the 225TTSX seems to offer all the penetration that is needed for elk and moose, a 10% increase in weight is desirable for Africa.

So, yes, I would agree with you that nothing practical seems to stop and retain a 225TTSX in normal NA hunting. A sectional density of .281 in a monolithic bullet is truly an awesome penetrator. So the 225TTSX is pretty close to a perfect all-around hunting bullet.

But, think of the penetration when that monolithic bullet is raised to a SD of .313. Wow! Is it needed? Yes, it can only be an advantage when buffalo are in the same forest.

On the date I was going by a statement from Aggaard as to the .338 not being legal in Africa, actually said Kenya.. As to the rest of the post, I find it rather a play on words in that my opinion doesn't coinside with yours, and perhaps your correct, but I don't see much difference in the big bores on buffalo nor the mid bores on PG, in fact we will have to disagree on calibers vs. caliber for years to come...I put my faith in bullet construction not caliber, and I do tend to squeeze all I can out of all the calibers I shoot..BTW try being more cordial, didn't your mama teach you any manors!

Who shoots buffalo at 400 yards?

M

Not to mention the LRX opens up more and has will have a broader cross section that could impede penetration.


SD means jack, really.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark Clark:
Who shoots buffalo at 400 yards?

M

Am I to assume that you do not?
(Just kidding. )

Back to the real world:
I've shot Dorcas, Tommie, Roan, et al., at 400 yards. It's a rare distance in Africa. The idea is to have a thumper bullet for any size antelope at 400 yards, a bullet that resists wind drift AND gives excellent penetration up close for buffalo. The longest buffalo shot in our family was my son, 416Rigby at 225 yards across a grassless flatland. Normally, buffalo are shot 20-100 yards.

Will the 250gnLRX penetrate more fully than the allegedly "tougher" 225gnTTSX? I would expect so. That extra weight counts for something, and the full width of expansion for that diameter bullet will probably be reached by both bullets. Sometimes, in fact, a softer metal will open quickly and be pressed back against the shank. The Barnes monomials are not like Woodleighs whose bonded lead helps to maintain an overly wide mushroom. We'll have to test and see. Test media can contain a bullet, but in real life I would expect most animals to let these two bullets pass right on through to the forest beyond.

A bullet Ive had good luck with in the .338 Win. is the 300 gr. Woodleigh, its an awesome killer. Ive used it on elk and deer, shot my best yet bull elk with it, and my second best Cape Buffalo..Ive always used the round nose at 2450 to 2518 FPS depending on the amount of RL-22 I used.

Geoff does not produce a PP version in a 300 gr. Woodleigh, only a round nose and a solid. A 300 gr. PP would be even better and Geoff could do that by changing the ogive and making a PP the same length as the RN..It would be a fine bullet in the .338 Win. or the big .338s on the 404 case etc..